Jump to content
The Education Forum
François Carlier

A question to David Lifton

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Hey, look, folks, it's an artist's sketch published in the Boston Globe, so it must be accurate!  That pretty much nails it.

Of course, I wasn't implying that the Globe was correct when they said the bullet went from JFK's HEAD to his THROAT. That theory is, of course, absurd. But at the time the Globe published its article on 11/23, they had no idea that JFK had a wound in his upper back. They thought (at the time) that Kennedy had just TWO wounds---the head wound and a bullet hole in his throat.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  JFK on Elm St with a band of white shirt collar above his jacket collar, and a little bit of elevation of the jacket below the collar.

15c.%2BCroft%2BPhoto%2BShowing%2BJFK%27s%2BCar%2BOn%2BElm%2BStreet.jpg

This shows JFK's clothing as required by any T1 back wound.  Note the top of the jacket collar a good inch up into the hairline.

SBT%202_zpsffsko8jk.jpg't

The nutters can't see the discrepancy.

Such is the power of denial.

image.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Of course, I wasn't implying that the Globe was correct when they said the bullet went from JFK's HEAD to his THROAT. That theory is, of course, absurd. But at the time the Globe published its article on 11/23, they had no idea that JFK had a wound in his upper back. They thought (at the time) that Kennedy had just TWO wounds---the head wound and a bullet hole in his throat.

         I wonder why the Globe would have published such a wildly inaccurate, goofy sketch about such an utterly tragic event, (which was especially tragic for the people of Massachusetts.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

I wonder why the Globe would have published such a wildly inaccurate, goofy sketch about such an utterly tragic event (which was especially tragic for the people of Massachusetts)?

Because they thought JFK had been hit by only one bullet (coming from the TSBD), and they knew he had a massive head wound and a wound in his throat.

Given those limited facts regarding the wounds, it's really the only conclusion they could have reached at that early stage on November 23rd. The media people certainly had no info concerning the autopsy as of Nov. 23.

In fact, I think that even weeks (or months) later, there were reporters and media people speculating as to whether there had, in fact, even been an autopsy done on JFK's body.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Because they thought JFK had been hit by only one bullet (coming from the TSBD), and they knew he had a massive head wound and a wound in his throat.

Given those limited facts regarding the wounds, it's really the only conclusion they could have reached at that early stage on November 23rd. The media people certainly had no info concerning the autopsy as of Nov. 23.

In fact, I think that even weeks (or months) later, there were reporters and media people speculating as to whether there had, in fact, even been an autopsy done on JFK's body.

         I should defer to the true experts here, but, from what I have read, the Parkland ER physicians spoke openly to the media about the widely observed entry wounds in JFK's throat and right forehead --- and the missing right occipital-parietal skull fragment that was, obviously, an exit wound.  It was only later, under duress, that the Parkland medical staff testimony was altered to, awkwardly, conform to the "lone nut" in the TSBD with the cheap Carcano government narrative.

       Secondly, there was ample witness testimony about a shot being fired from the "grassy knoll."  The extant videos also show, quite clearly, that everyone ran to the grassy knoll in search of the assassin(s) immediately after the shooting.

      So, no, the Boston Globe sketch does NOT describe what was known about the assassination on 11/23.  Instead, it describes a false narrative that was inconsistent with the reports from Parkland, and the witness testimony from Dealey Plaza.  Where did the Globe get their false narrative?

      

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Where did the Globe get their false narrative?

I would guess that the Boston Globe people pretty much tried to figure it out for themselves----armed, as they were, with the sketchy information that they had at that time --- e.g.,

....Two known wounds in JFK's body (throat and head);

....The shooting having occurred on Elm Street in Dealey Plaza (after JFK's car had already passed the assassin's window);

....An alleged lone assassin on the 6th floor of the Book Depository Building;

....And a lone suspect (Lee Harvey Oswald) in police custody who happened to work in the TSBD.

The preponderance of evidence after Day 1 (Nov. 22) indicated THREE shots, ONE assassin firing from the Depository, and only TWO known wounds in the President (head and throat), although we could now argue over the fact that the Globe article seems to totally ignore the huge EXIT wound that the Parkland doctors said was located at the BACK of JFK's head. In fact, the Globe sketch doesn't include ANY "large wound" in the President's head at all. ~shrug~

It's interesting to note, however, that the Boston Globe newspaper---on Day 1 [Nov. 22 PM]---came very close to pinpointing the true location of the entry hole in the back of President Kennedy's head. In fact, according to the autopsy surgeons (with whom I personally disagree on this point), the Globe nailed it just about to the inch---low on the back of the head near the EOP.

I wonder if any other media outlets got THAT close to the truth regarding the location of the entrance wound in JFK's cranium on Day #1?

The byline on the Globe story indicates it was written by "Ian Menzies (Globe Science Editor)".

The-Boston-Globe-11-23-63.jpg

Photo Credit: Anthony Marsh.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

         I should defer to the true experts here, but, from what I have read, the Parkland ER physicians spoke openly to the media about the widely observed entry wounds in JFK's throat and right forehead --- and the missing right occipital-parietal skull fragment that was, obviously, an exit wound.  It was only later, under duress, that the Parkland medical staff testimony was altered to, awkwardly, conform to the "lone nut" in the TSBD with the cheap Carcano government narrative.

       Secondly, there was ample witness testimony about a shot being fired from the "grassy knoll."  The extant videos also show, quite clearly, that everyone ran to the grassy knoll in search of the assassin(s) immediately after the shooting.

      So, no, the Boston Globe sketch does NOT describe what was known about the assassination on 11/23.  Instead, it describes a false narrative that was inconsistent with the reports from Parkland, and the witness testimony from Dealey Plaza.  Where did the Globe get their false narrative?

      

Several years (or decades) ago, I wrote to several Dallas doctors, asking them a lot of questions about Kennedy's wounds. NONE of them ever suggested that their testimony had been altered in the slightest. And ALL of them told me that they agreed with the official findings.
Your statement "that the Parkland medical staff testimony was altered" is only wishful thinking, if I may say so.

Secondly, you write that "there was ample witness testimony about a shot being fired from the "grassy knoll."

"Testimony" ? Well, Sir, at some point, you need some evidence, facts, traces, cues, signs, something. In this instance, unfortunately, you have nothing concrete.

You also write "The extant videos also show, quite clearly, that everyone ran to the grassy knoll in search of the assassin(s) immediately after the shooting."
No, that's not true. That's one of the myths of the Kennedy assassination. First of all, if you really analyze photos and films (by spotting the cars of the motorcade in the street, for example), you'll see that it was not "immediately" (as you put it) that some people walked (or ran) to the grassy knoll. Second of all, you have people doing different things : most of the crowd heading back eastward into town, or just staying idle, in disbelief or in disarray. And thirdly, nobody was the hero who decided to chase the assassin at the expense of their own lives. Who would ? There was already a policeman on the grassy knoll and at any rate, whoever walked there a minute after the shooting (out of curiosity or excitement) never saw anything (no shooter, no gun, no bullet, no trace, nothing).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

In fact, I think that even weeks (or months) later, there were reporters and media people speculating as to whether there had, in fact, even been an autopsy done on JFK's body.

FYI....

As a follow-up to my comment above, below is a newscast from the NBC Radio Network that was aired on November 26, 1963, four days after JFK was killed. And after I first heard this radio newscast several years ago, I recall thinking to myself that it seemed mighty strange for the news media---four full days after the assassination---to not have any confirmation on whether there had even been an autopsy conducted on JFK's body---even though the same media obviously knew that Kennedy's body had been taken to Bethesda Naval Hospital on the night of the assassination. (The "autopsy" excerpt is located at 4:10 in the video.) ....

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2ERm-cucsE0azJwSXZ2c1BrWDQ/view

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a timeline on the statements and articles regarding the medical evidence in chapters 1 and 1b of patspeer.com. Those with an interest should check it out.

DVP is correct in that some of the Dallas doctors indicated that ONE bullet pierced Kennedy's throat and exited the back of his head, and that the next day the Boston Globe matched this to the fact they'd been told the shots came from behind Kennedy, and reversed the trajectory--claiming instead that the ONE bullet striking Kennedy entered the back of his head and exited his throat.

And Francois Carlier is telling the truth in that over the years the Dallas doctors were repeatedly asked about Lifton's body-alteration theory, and that they largely rejected it. Where Francois is mistaken, however, is in his assertion nobody ran to the knoll looking for the shooter. While he is correct in that nobody chased someone they thought to be a shooter, there were a lot of witnesses who followed police to the train yards, in hopes of witnessing the capture of a shooter, or perhaps even assisting the police in the capture.

This may be hard for some to believe, but it is not uncommon for an unarmed American to expose himself to serious danger as a reaction to a perceived injustice. I am not a particularly brave man, IMO, but even I have jumped in front of a trio of rednecks preparing to beat up on some stupid punk rock teens, and have raced down an aisle at a baseball game to help pull a couple of drunk idiots off an usher. It's wrong. Someone has to do something. So safety be damned. As a consequence, I feel quite certain that I'd have been one of those rushing the knoll on 11-22-63 (provided, of course, that I was alone or with some friends--if I'd been with a child it would be a different story.) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I have a timeline on the statements and articles regarding the medical evidence in chapters 1 and 1b of patspeer.com. Those with an interest should check it out.

DVP is correct in that some of the Dallas doctors indicated that ONE bullet pierced Kennedy's throat and exited the back of his head, and that the next day the Boston Globe matched this to the fact they'd been told the shots came from behind Kennedy, and reversed the trajectory--claiming instead that the ONE bullet striking Kennedy entered the back of his head and exited his throat.

And Francois Carlier is telling the truth in that over the years the Dallas doctors were repeatedly asked about Lifton's body-alteration theory, and that they largely rejected it. Where Francois is mistaken, however, is in his assertion nobody ran to the knoll looking for the shooter. While he is correct in that nobody chased someone they thought to be a shooter, there were a lot of witnesses who followed police to the train yards, in hopes of witnessing the capture of a shooter, or perhaps even assisting the police in the capture.

This may be hard for some to believe, but it is not uncommon for an unarmed American to expose himself to serious danger as a reaction to a perceived injustice. I am not a particularly brave man, IMO, but even I have jumped in front of a trio of rednecks preparing to beat up on some stupid punk rock teens, and have raced down an aisle at a baseball game to help pull a couple of drunk idiots off an usher. It's wrong. Someone has to do something. So safety be damned. As a consequence, I feel quite certain that I'd have been one of those rushing the knoll on 11-22-63 (provided, of course, that I was alone or with some friends--if I'd been with a child it would be a different story.) 

Dear Pat, hello.
(I have yet to answer your message on the other thread, I'm late, I know, I'll do it soon).
I agree with you. I am not going to try to argue with you on these points.
What I was saying was that, when you see the women in the pictures wearing their skirts and carrying their purses walking toward the Grassy knoll, you know very well that they have no intention of subdueing whatever killer they'll come across !!!
Having said that, of course, you are right and I agree with you : "there were a lot of witnesses who followed police to the train yards, in hopes of witnessing the capture of a shooter, or perhaps even assisting the police in the capture." "A lot", or "several", I can't say. But what is most important to underline is that not one of those people found anything of substance. Nothing. Nobody. I mean, three shells were found that day, but not on the Grassy knoll, at least you'll agree with that !
+ I believe your story about your behavior and I tend to agree with your point of view.

Edited by François Carlier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Of course, I wasn't implying that the Globe was correct when they said the bullet went from JFK's HEAD to his THROAT. That theory is, of course, absurd. But at the time the Globe published its article on 11/23, they had no idea that JFK had a wound in his upper back. They thought (at the time) that Kennedy had just TWO wounds---the head wound and a bullet hole in his throat.

The EOP-throat theory is supported by the torso X-rays which appear to show a long, narrow cavity doing down between the tissues of the middle neck area to near the area of the throat wound.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And thus the fake debate commences...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FC: You also write "The extant videos also show, quite clearly, that everyone ran to the grassy knoll in search of the assassin(s) immediately after the shooting.
No, that's not true. That's one of the myths of the Kennedy assassination."

Dead Wrong:

 

 

As per the Parkland doctors not having their testimony massaged.  Again, this flies in the face of the declassified record, something that DVP and FC do not pay much attention to at all. Based on these records Gary Aguilar wrote that, after the assassination, Secret Service agent Elmer Moore spent a lot of time at Parkland. The Dallas doctors, up until about 12/11, had been talking to the press and they said that the throat wound was an entrance wound. But now Moore set up shop  in the place. With the official autopsy report in hand, he began to turn the tide.  For example, with Malcolm Perry.  He also began to get this story in the local papers, e.g. the DTH of December 12th.  That story said the throat wound was an exit wound and at a downward angle.  (LOL.)  Moore also got some SS agents to alter their testimony to the FBI agents, Sibert and O'Neill, in order to discredit their report, which was Specter's agenda also. (Jim DiEugenio, The JFK Assassination: The Evidence Today, pp. 167-68)

When Moore showed up to testify about his perfidy to the Church Committee, he had a lawyer in tow.  Why?  Because he understood that talking a witness out of his testimony in a criminal case was a felony.  As many have written, Moore then became Earl Warren's personal escort through the hearings, and he admitted he talked to him every day.  (ibid) FC would probably say it was about baseball or the weather. 

Final comment about Moore.  He despised Kennedy.  Said he was pink, and selling us out to the commies--he actually got scary talking about this issue. (ibid)  This is the kind of inquiry that the Warren Commission was.

With utterly wrong comments like the above, FC is showing why no one, except DVP, missed him. Here comes another Comedy of Errors.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

With utterly wrong comments like the above, FC is showing why no one, except DVP, missed him. Here comes another Comedy of Errors.

The LN is a zombie meme feeding on fake debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×